Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030896123 = product of:
  0.123584494 = sum of:
    0.123584494 = weight(_text_:description in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.123584494 = score(doc=299,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.53383994 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to explain the character and causes of obsolescence in assigned subject descriptors. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis with examples and reference to existing literature. Findings - Subject description comes in two forms: assigning the name or code of a subject to a document and assigning a document to a named subject category. Each method associates a document with the name of a subject. This naming activity is the site of tensions between the procedural need of information systems for stable records and the inherent multiplicity and instability of linguistic expressions. As languages change, previously assigned subject descriptions become obsolescent. The issues, tensions, and compromises involved are introduced. Originality/value - Drawing on the work of Robert Fairthorne and others, an explanation of the unavoidable obsolescence of assigned subject headings is presented. The discussion relates to libraries, but the same issues arise in any context in which subject description is expected to remain useful for an extended period of time.

0.016332638 = product of:
  0.06533055 = sum of:
    0.06533055 = sum of:
      0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031599965 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)
      0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03373058 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since ancient times intellectual work has required tools for writing, documents for reading, and bibliographies for finding, not to mention more specialized techniques and technologies. Direct personal discussion is often impractical and we depend on documents instead. Document technology evolved through writing, printing, telecommunications, copying, and computing and facilitated an 'information flood' which motivated important knowledge organization initiatives, especially in the nineteenth century (library science, bibliography, documentation). Electronics and the Internet amplified these trends. As an example we consider an initiative to provide shared access to the working notes of editors preparing scholarly editions of historically important texts. For the future, we can project trends leading to ubiquitous recording, pervasive representations, simultaneous interaction regardless of geography, and powerful analysis and visualization of the records resulting from that ubiquitous recording. This evolving situation has implications for publishing, archival practice, and knowledge organization. The passing of time is of special interest in knowledge organization because knowing is cultural, living, and always changing. Technique and technology are also cultural ("material culture") but fixed and inanimate, as can be seen in the obsolescence of subject headings, which remain inscribed while culture moves on. The tension between the benefits of technology and the limitations imposed by fixity in a changing world provide a central tension in knowledge organization over time.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.01372202 = product of:
  0.05488808 = sum of:
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=4438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw

0.013492232 = product of:
  0.05396893 = sum of:
    0.05396893 = product of:
      0.10793786 = sum of:
        0.10793786 = weight(_text_:22 in 5405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10793786 = score(doc=5405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 10(1992) no.4, S.7-22

0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=3609,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3609, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3609)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 4.2017 9:44:26

0.006746116 = product of:
  0.026984464 = sum of:
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 4226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=4226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 6.1996 19:22:20

0.0059028515 = product of:
  0.023611406 = sum of:
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 10(1992) no.4, S.7-22

0.005529994 = product of:
  0.022119977 = sum of:
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ordinarily the word document denotes a textual record. Increasingliy sophisticated attempts to provide access to the rapidly growing quantity of available documents raised questions about what should be considered a document. Paul Otlet and other developed a functional view of document and discussed whether sculpture, museum objects, and live animals, could be considered documents. Suzanne Briet equates document with organized physical evidence. These ideas appear to resemble notions of 'material culture' in cultural anthropology and 'object as signs' in semiotics. Others, especially in the USA took a narrower view. New digital technology renews old questions and also old confusions between medium, message and meaning

0.005529994 = product of:
  0.022119977 = sum of:
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

NISO draft standard Z39.50 (sometimes called the "Linked Systems Protocol") provides a standard for linking computers to permit the searching and retrieval of machine-readable bibliographic and authority records. The concept, context, status, and potential of the Linked Systems Protocol are reviewed in relation to the historical development of bibliographies and library catalogs. The functions of a fully developed bibliographic Linked Systems Protocol are summarized and shown to have extensive implications for scholarship, bibliographic access, and the notion of a national database. Effective international use of such a protocol would require the solution of several traditional problems.